We have been pushing it hard in Central Otago!

[Winston001]

no they don't? retail systems could easily coupe and add the extra levy fee on and the software doing the accounts out the back is even easier to setup

Dale - you are looking at this from the perspective of someone comfortable with numbers, computers and programs.

I can remember the nightmare introduction of GST and the work generated for accountants. Not only would shops have to learn to differentiate between goods, they'd have more tax returns to do too.

Certainly it could be done but it isn't desirable. Simple is best.

[Monstaman]

Very good points Winston001 and as NighthawkNZ it probably wouldn't be hard to implement a system with today technology.

As a keen mountain biker and kayaker as well I would not begrudge having some sort of levy on all new goods bought off the showroom floor for the first time, this would apply to bikes, tennis rackets, rugby boots, kayaks etc i.e. all the non levied sports which contribute to the ACC bill.

Sounds simple, probably not but to spread the cost over many other sports and hobbies than carry injury statistic would make sense to me.

Big start would be to take ACC payments away from crims, non residents etc as well.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I can remember the nightmare introduction of GST and the work generated for accountants. Not only would shops have to learn to differentiate between goods, they'd have more tax returns to do too.

Software has come a long way since then... most its just a click of a button to add a new levy... on to th eaccount etc


thing is I can see that they will introduce something like this... as they need to generate that extra cash to become fully funded

[Winston001]

Software has come a long way since then... most its just a click of a button to add a new levy... on to th eaccount etc


thing is I can see that they will introduce something like this... as they need to generate that extra cash to become fully funded

Yes but the simple answer is increase the Earner Premium which comes with PAYE. Its politically difficult cos it looks like extra tax.

Really the best answer would be to reduce spending. I can't help but agree with those who say ACC created physiotherapy as a new medical profession. Not that physio is bad, but its a feel-good therapy a lot of the time.....

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Yes but the simple answer is increase the Earner Premium which comes with PAYE. Its politically difficult cos it looks like extra tax.

Really the best answer would be to reduce spending. I can't help but agree with those who say ACC created physiotherapy as a new medical profession. Not that physio is bad, but its a feel-good therapy a lot of the time.....

so I pay more to cover sports players which I don't play... I would rather my ACC in my PAYE cover me riding my bike... which it should

[Mikkel]

Employers pay a levy calculated on the job risk so they bear a disproportionate cost of ACC. There are no exceptions for stupid workers or accidents caused by other people. The employer pays whatever - no fault remember?

However an employer with a bad accident record does not pay an extra levy. So Mikkel, in the ACC sense the employer isn't held liable.

Of course not, the point of ACC, to a large degree, is to prevent any claims be made against an employer in the case of a work-related injury.

My point is, IF there was no ACC and some guy suffered a work-related injury he could possible hold his employer responsible and file a lawsuit for damages. As it is, the employer pays their levy in order to, amongst other issues, keep their back free of potential repercussions arising from work-related injuries occurring at their business.

If we compare this to the current state of affairs within the pulverising life of motor transportation we must notice the following: If one were to suffer an injury caused by the incompetence of another roaduser you could, in the case that there was no ACC, take that person to court and sue for damages. However, the levy extracted from motorists does neither reflect the likelihood nor potential of said motorist causing injury to themselves and third parties - rather how likely they are to suffer injury caused by themselves or third parties. As such you are, not to put too fine a point on details, taxing the victims instead of the criminals.

The inherent unfairness of this is what bugs me more than anything.

After all, if we aren't going to fault whoever causes an incident - how the fuck, pardon my french, can it be reasonable to fault who suffers it. And while we do recognise risk factors as far as work-related injuries goes - we do send the bill in the appropriate direction, namely the employers and not the workers. Imagine what would happen if they changed the rules so that you would pay a varying percentage of you income to reflect the risk-factor of your occupation... all hell would break loose!

[dipshit]

Other than this reply I am not even going bother responding to you as you will only want to shoot it down with shit again and quite frankly I can't be fucked with you, it would seem that anyone who says anything you don't agree with is totally wrong .. g o o d on ya!! .

So that would be a 'no' then.

[Winston001]

so I pay more to cover sports players which I don't play... I would rather my ACC in my PAYE cover me riding my bike... which it should

You already pay - and have done for decades - for the DPB which I don't think you are likely to access.... And numerous other welfare benefits. Thats just the price of living in a community. Neither you or I would want to see sports injured people on street corners begging for help.....

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

You already pay - and have done for decades - for the DPB which I don't think you are likely to access.... And numerous other welfare benefits. Thats just the price of living in a community. Neither you or I would want to see sports injured people on street corners begging for help.....

and thats the whole point of the cross subsidising... yet they ACC don't want to cross subsidise motorcyclists...

[duckonin]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

Did you bother to find out the facts before talking to the media...???

Are you actually alive.?.That is eyes wide open!!!
Do we all have to believe the media print or talk the truth ?

[Winston001]

If we compare this to the current state of affairs within the pulverising life of motor transportation we must notice the following: If one were to suffer an injury caused by the incompetence of another roaduser you could, in the case that there was no ACC, take that person to court and sue for damages. However, the levy extracted from motorists does neither reflect the likelihood nor potential of said motorist causing injury to themselves and third parties - rather how likely they are to suffer injury caused by themselves or third parties. As such you are, not to put too fine a point on details, taxing the victims instead of the criminals.

The inherent unfairness of this is what bugs me more than anything.

After all, if we aren't going to fault whoever causes an incident - how the fuck, pardon my french, can it be reasonable to fault who suffers it.....

Forgive me, I enjoy a good argument.

Firstly motor-vehicle and work accidents do not exist in a miraculous "no fault" zone. The Police and the Labour Department are very zealous about prosecuting persons at fault - be it a third party driver or an employer (OSH).

So if your accident is caused by a car driver - the one you want to sue - that person will be prosecuted by the police. Thus there are consequences for fault - but they don't involve you having to privately sue.

Secondly, the motorvehicle ACC fund has covered current claims but its the longterm funding which is at issue. Within the fund, motorcyclists appear to pay less than their fair share.

Yes I know thats debatable but objectively it looks a fair point - which we can show is wrong - if it is.

I have to say that in choosing to ride a m/c I know I'm unprotected compared with people in cars. I accept that risk. But is it fair to expect car owners to cover my extra risk?




Indubitably.......YES!! One for all and all for one.

[FJRider]

The motorvehicle ACC fund has covered current claims but its the longterm funding which is at issue. Within the fund, motorcyclists appear to pay less than their fair share.

I have to say that in choosing to ride a m/c I know I'm unprotected compared with people in cars. I accept that risk. But is it fair to expect car owners to cover my extra risk?

The majority of motorcyclist's (... not all of them I know) own a car too. So they are already paying an ACC levy twice. Many owning more than one. In effect paying two or three (or more) [times] the levy's of car owners already. I for one, would like to know what percentage of motorcyclist's actually own more than one motorcycle. It seems the assumption is that car or bike owners only have ONE vehicle.

[dipshit]

Are you actually alive.?.That is eyes wide open!!!
Do we all have to believe the media print or talk the truth ?

Well yes if we want the credibility to poke holes in the ACC figures.

And if our number one argument to get off the price hike is "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" simply isn't true, then what is the chance of succeeding..???

The general public will think we are a bunch whingeing hypocrites when they find out that most motorcycle accidents aren't caused by car drivers. Any credibility and sympathy we may have from the general public could be lost.

[Ixion]

and thats the whole point of the cross subsidising... yet they ACC don't want to cross subsidise motorcyclists...

That is the essential point, isn't it.

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

[Winston001]

That is the essential point, isn't it.

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

Well no. As has been pointed out several times, ACC employment levies are calculated on risk. Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't obviate differential motorvehicle levies now.